The Superman Vs. Batman Argument Is Invalid
You've all heard it before. Some tired argument revolving around the two most well known superheroes in history. While you can understand why the argument is made from the two being the most recognizable, both are DC properties and us human beings have a sort of attraction to comparisons. In the end of the day, it is by far the most stupid argument I have ever heard being mentioned frequently. This is coming from a dude who runs in a billion different nerd circles with all kinds of broken bases. I know my shit.
Before I get to why it's invalid, I feel the need to express personal opinions on the characters. I am a self confessed Batfantard. I would go as far as saying that Batman is my favorite fictional character of all time. I grew up watching the Bruce Timm and Paul Dini cartoon, I've read all the essentials and then some as a kid, I had the movies on VHS then the newer ones on DVD and Bluray, I have an ungodly amount of useless knowledge about the character grounded in my brain. Batman is better than all for me, and it's likely it will stay that way.
As for Superman: I love Supes. I understand that there's a whole anti-superman movement that's been around for decades now but I've always seen those people as ones who aren't as familiar with the material as they like to let on. There has been some fantastic Superman stories over the years and the character deserves the accolades, praise and recognizability he established. Superman sits cozily as one of my all time favorite Comic Book characters.
Now with that said, I think I've made it abundantly clear that I prefer Batman to Superman. I think he's the better character and has had better comics, games, movies and whatever you can throw in. As far as a fight between the two goes: Superman wins. I can't see why that's even debatable. How in the blue hell are you going to argue against that? It all started with one big story all the way back in 1986. Yes, that one.
Frank Miller, groundbreaking comic author and modern racist, gave us the fantastic The Dark Knight Returns. In one of the most memorable scenes, Batman beats Superman in a fight. With the help of gear, Girl Robin, Kryptonite, Green Arrow and the now dreaded Prep Time. It was a great story, and one of the greatest moments in comic history was the fight. There have been Superman Vs. Batman fights after where Batman wins, but they all pale in comparison to the legendary and forever iconic TDKR moment.
The only bad thing to come out of it is the flood of Batfantards who will always proclaim Batman the winner in everything by yelling out "PREP TIME". What is this prep time you ask? It is what comic geeks have deemed as Batman's superpower, his ability to be prepared for anything whenever, wherever that may be. While one of the most compelling things about the character is that he's just a man who is capable of advanced tactics and strategies, is a master detective, knows all martial arts, is at the peak of human strength and intelligence and what have you. That doesn't change the fact that he is still a regular man, which means by definition he is inferior to the Superman. You see what I'm getting at?
What made the entire fight in TDKR so compelling was the fact that Batman pulled the seemingly impossible. He not only beat Superman, he could have killed him but chose not to. In some ways you can say he went easy on him. It's just out of this world, which is why it was a great moment. I mean put a lion in a fight against a regular joe, lion wins. That's not even a question, but if the human being somehow pulls off killing the lion, whether it was his environment or was able to use his equipment and anything in the man's favor, that can be made into a more compelling story than the former. That's the draw, the underdog wins. But in the end, he had to survive! That's exactly the point.
Another reason why it's a stupid debate is the fact that there always needs to be a what if scenario in which he wins. What if Bats had gear that can evenly match him up against Superman's powers? What if Batman had a fuckton of Kryptonite on his person and had the jump on good old Clark? You are giving an advantage to one while handicapping the other, which is an admittance that yes, Superman wins. It's like me saying I could beat Usain Bolt in a race, if I could drive a car and his legs were cut off.
Why do some people still argue this? Cause they have an affinity for Batman or a seething hatred for Superman or both. The only reason they bring up such limitations and rules is cause no matter what they want Batman to win, Batman has to win or you're wrong. Which is funny, I don't see anyone arguing "Well yeah but if *insert superhero here* was fighting Aquaman under water the Guardian of Atlantis totally wins!". Why? Cause nobody likes Aquaman that much, nobody cares if he wins or not. The most used answer for any fight with anybody against Aquaman is that the other guy wins cause Aquaman sucks when he's not underwater. While that's not entirely true, I'm willing to bet it's the answer 99% of the time. But suddenly Batman has everything he can use to win and Superman has everything against him to make sure he loses when it's that debate for a certain crowd. It just wreaks of delusional fanboyism to me.
At the end of it all, it is an unfair comparison and always will be. Why must you have that stupid argument when you can just enjoy the fact that there is a good story out there where Batman beat Superman. Superman will always be on top when compared, and that's why that story was so great. Superman wins in a fight, but there are good stories of Batman somehow surviving and coming out on top. That's all there is to that discussion.